You're familiar with the frivolous lawsuit filed by Texas developer H. Walker Royall against Carla Main, the author of the excellent book Bulldozed. (The book chronicles an egregious example of eminent domain abuse in which Royall was deeply involved; you can read my review of the book here.) Well, Royall isn't the only one trying to sue critics of eminent domain abuse into silence, in blatant disregard of the First Amendment. Richard Swift and Wayne Wilkinson, public officials in Clarksville, Tennessee, sued critics of a redevelopment project who ran an ad in the local paper criticizing the project. That case has now been thrown out. "Accusing a public official or public figure of using their political influence to obtain a benefit for others or of themselves or favoring their supporters is not defamation," said the judge. "Debate on public issues shall be uninhibited, wide open and generally do include, vehement, caustic and unpleasant attacks on the character of government officials."

The Wall Street Journal has an article here on the problematic "blight" loopholes in many so-called eminent domain "reform" bills. It also carries a clip from Begging for Billionaires, the new documentary on eminent domain abuse that is premiering at the Minneapolis Film Festival this weekend:

Pacific Legal Foundation is proud to have devoted more than a quarter century to the protection of the fundamental human right to own private property. We have fought for that right in state and federal courts across this country, because we believe, as America's founding fathers did, that private property is the guardian of every other right. We do not regard our mission as "quixotic," or as an inevitable failure. On the contrary, at a time when the right of individuals to keep and enjoy the fruits of their labor is under attack like never before in this country, Pacific Legal Foundation is proud to stand as one of the leading champions of this fundamental constitutional right. And we believe that this nation is poised to reaffirm its commitment to the rights of all Americans to work for an honest living, to keep what they earn, and to pursue happiness for themselves and their families. Some may regard this cause as futile or silly. We regard it as our duty as attorneys who have sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States—and as grateful inheritors of a legacy of liberty from previous generations of Americans.

The Pacific Legal Foundation's Lauren Wiggins and the Cato Institute's Ilya Shaprio have coauthored an article in the Washington Examiner about a Seattle-area case in which a couple who asked for a building permit were ordered to pay $50,000 to the city so that it could replace the pipes in its drainage system:

The city ignored the McClungs’ protests that their fees would go towards improving infrastructure not on their property, so their development would have no impact on the drainage system—let alone one worth $50,000. The city did not care; the McClungs were a captive source of revenue.

The McClungs sued the city under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, whose Takings Clause prohibits the government from “taking” private property for public use without just compensation. They argued that the city could not force them to pay impact fees for off-site pipes absent proof that their development would have a specific detrimental effect on the existing drainage system.

The Ninth Circuit—not the most property rights-friendly court, and a leading source of Supreme Court reversals—ruled in favor of Sumner. The court first reasoned that money is not property: The development permit was conditioned on the payment of fees rather than some imposition on the land itself, so there could not be an unconstitutional taking of property. Further, the court held, because the fees were imposed by an ordinance, the city did not have to show any evidence that the McClungs’ development had an individual, adverse impact on the drainage system. That the city thought the pipes needed upgrading was justification enough.

This is unfortunately typical of efforts by local governments to abuse their permitting powers by twisting the arms of property owners. Although it is illegal under the Supreme Court's decision in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission more than twenty years ago, cities continue to do it and courts continue to find clever ways of allowing them to.

The new documentary Begging for Billionairesis going to premeire at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Film Festival on May 2. It's an excellent film focusing on the real meaning and impact of eminent domain abuse. Although the producers feature primarily the abuse of eminent domain in Missouri, the story they tell applies just as strongly to every other state. Here's a preview of the movie, which features Pacific Legal Foundation client Homer Tourkakis.

It's happened before: government using eminent domain to keep sports franchises from leaving town. Decades ago the city of Oakland, California, condemned the Oakland Raiders so that they wouldn't leave town. (As a friend of mine said recently, "The Raiders? Talk about blight!") The California Supreme Court allowed that condemnation to go forward.

Now comes word that the city of Baltimore, Maryland, is considering using eminent domain to seize control over the Preakness horse race, the owner of which is entering bankruptcy proceedings. Here's the money quote from Governor O'Malley: "It wouldn't be responsible for us to presume that there will be a private market solution to this."

Oh, yes. It would be irresponsible to allow consumers and property owners to freely bargain over what to do with the resources that belong to them. If that happened, they might come to a decision about whether to keep the Preakness or not based on what they can afford, and what else they might prefer to put their money into. Instead, Governor O'Malley's "responsible" officials should use force to take away the right of individuals and businesses to make their own economic decisions, and set up what bureaucrats think is the "right" outcome.

The Montana legislature is considering a bill, SB402, which would require the government to compensate property owners when legislation makes their property valueless--in addition to when it actually seizes the property outright through eminent domain.